Calling all Gun Onwers in the Northeast!

[Nomad101bc]

Connecticut is about to set a precedent that will bleed into all the surrounding states and threatens every where from Maine to Virginia. We need to email every single member of this commitee so they see overwhelming & unrelenting support for freedom. Here is the NRA's summary of both bills:

Raised Bill No. 603 would require all ammunition sold in Connecticut to be coded with an individual serial number (ammunition serialization) and entered into a statewide database at the time of sale. Encoded ammunition would be registered to the purchaser and would include the date of transaction, the purchaser’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number, and the serial number of the ammunition. Not only would this measure cause enormous increases in the cost of ammunition, but it could lead to the establishment of a database of ammunition consumers and ultimately the cessation of the sale of ammunition in Connecticut.

If that weren't enough, this legislation actually exposes gun owners to risk of criminal prosecution without them even knowing it! There is no way for the ammunition consumer to be assured that the serial number imprinted on the box matches the serial number on the rounds inside. Even if the industry can or will produce this ammunition exclusively for Connecticut, the consumers will be required to register ammunition purchases and then blindly trust that the number etched on the "base of the bullet projectile" is accurately represented on the box in which it is sold. Since the "base of the bullet projectile" is necessarily obscured by the cartridge case, it is impossible for the consumer to know if he or she has accurately "registered" their purchase.

Raised Bill No. 607 would seek to ban the sale of semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called "microstamping" technology. Microstamping is a failed technology that would require identifying marks to be etched into the firing pin and breech face of a firearm. The technology can easily be defeated with common household tools, has no public safety value, and adds substantially to the cost of the firearm.

Raised Bill No. 607 doesn’t stop there! It would also outlaw the private sale or transfer of long guns.

Here are all of the people on the judicairy commitee:

State Senator Andrew McDonald (D-27) – Co-Chair

[email protected]

State Representative Michael Lawlor (D-99) – Co-Chair

[email protected]

State Senator Mary Ann Handley (D-4) – Vice-Chair

[email protected]

State Representative Gerald Fox (D-146) – Vice-Chair

[email protected]

State Senator John Kissel, (R-7) – Ranking Member

[email protected]

State Representative Arthur O'Neill (R-69) – Ranking Member

[email protected]

State Representative Al Adinolfi (R-103)

[email protected]

State Representative William Aman (R-14)

[email protected]

State Representative Ryan Barry (D-12)

[email protected]

State Representative Jeffrey Berger (D-73)

[email protected]

State Representative Beth Bye (D-19)

[email protected]

State Senator Sam Caligiuri (R-16)

[email protected]

State Senator Eric Coleman (D-2)

[email protected]

State Representative Patricia Dillon (D-92)

[email protected]

State Representative Mary Fritz (D-90)

[email protected]

State Representative John Geragosian (D-25)

[email protected]

State Representative Janice Giegler (R-138)

[email protected]

State Representative Bob Godfrey (D-110)

[email protected]

State Senator Edwin Gomes (D-23)

[email protected]

State Representative Minnie Gonzalez (D-3)

[email protected]

State Representative Kenneth Green (D-1)

[email protected]

State Representative Gail Hamm (D-34)

[email protected]

State Representative William Hamzy (R-78)

[email protected]

State Representative Ernest Hewett (D-39)

[email protected]

State Representative Debra Lee Hovey (R-112)

[email protected]

State Representative Bryan Hurlburt (D-53)

[email protected]

State Representative Themis Klarides (R-114)

[email protected]

State Representative David Labriola (R-131)

[email protected]

State Representative Faith McMahon (D-15)

[email protected]

State Senator Edward Meyer (D-12)

[email protected]

State Representative Bruce Morris (D-140)

[email protected]

State Representative Tim O’Brien (D-24)

[email protected]

State Representative Melissa Olson (D-46)

[email protected]

State Representative Claudia Powers (R-151)

[email protected]

State Senator Andrew Roraback (R-30)

[email protected]

State Representative T.R. Rowe (R-123)

[email protected]

State Representative Joseph Serra (D-33)

[email protected]

State Representative James Spallone (D-36)

[email protected]

State Representative Christopher Stone (D-9)

[email protected]

State Representative Joseph Taborsak (D-109)

[email protected]

State Representative William Tong (D-147)

[email protected]

State Representative Toni Walker (D-93)

[email protected]

State Representative Elissa Wright (D-41)
[email protected]

 

[MDHunter]

When is the Committee Hearing

When will this bill be heard in Committee - how much time before that happens? We defeated this bill in Maryland, and hawaii and Washington (and possobly other states) have already tabled it. What's the timeframe on hearing and public testimony?

 

[Nomad101bc]

No one knows in CT, it could be two days or two weeks. They will shoot this straight to the senate to vote if it passes and it will not have to go through the commitee of public safety where we have pro gun friends.

 

[Cuda71]

Here's some text off the CT General Assembly's site.

603: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/S/2008SB-00603-R00-SB.htm

607: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/S/2008SB-00607-R00-SB.htm

According to the underlined (proposed addition) in 607, all semiautomatic pistols "transferred" on or after Jan 1, 2010 must contain the micro stamping technology. As the bill reads "no person, firm or corporation shall sell, deliver or otherwise transfer", does this imply that all private sales / transfers of pistols without micro stamping would be illegal?

Also I didn't see any text specifically pertaining to long guns, do you have any more information on that?

 

[MDHunter]

Are You Serious?

No one knows in CT, it could be two days or two weeks. They will shoot this straight to the senate to vote if it passes and it will not have to go through the commitee of public safety where we have pro gun friends.

Nomad - are you kidding? I thought Maryland was bad, but at leaast in Maryland the text of bills shows the committee the bill is referred to, and the date for the hearing, so we can come and give testimony.

I see on the 2 CT bills that Cuda linked that they were referred to the Committee on Judiciary (is that House or Senate?), but I don't see a date referenced for hearings.

OK - I'll pull together my notes from the Maryland hearings, some good stuff in there that the CT delegates should hear in terms of why this is bad legislation. I'll send in a later post, and then you guys in CT need to rally the troops and get the letters, emails, and phone calls flowing.

 

[DW]

I have fired off an email to most of the representatives on that list.

 

[green-grizzly]

Is there something in the law preventing people in Connecticut from just buying their ammo in another state?

 

[30 cal slob]

GRRRRR.

 

[30 cal slob]

Is there something in the law preventing people in Connecticut from just buying their ammo in another state?

not yet.

 

[romma]

I got zero response back from my Legislators...

 

[MDHunter]

Data Related to Ammo Encoding Legislation

OK Guys - here's some notes and thoughts from the hearings in Maryland, to help you inform the delegates in CT -

1) Impetus Behind the Bill

The ONLY person testifying in support of the bill in Maryland was Russ Ford, who co-owns the ammo encoding patent, and stands to get rich if the legislation is passed. THAT fact didn't sit very well with the maryland delegates, and shouldn't sit well with CT delegates either. Ford will likely be the person who testifies in CT also.

Ford is from Washington, and hired a lobbyist from Seattle with offices in Seattle and DC to lobby this bill to 11 states. His home state has already killed it, as have Hawaii and Maryland, and possibly other states.

2) Cost to CT and CT Citizens

Ford and the Maryland delegate who sponsored the bill claimed the costs of implementing this technology would be "minimal" - they had clearly not thought that part through -

The Remington and Federal ammo reps who gave testimony said that IF this was doable at all (and they couldn't state with certainty that it was doable), it would be incredibly cost prohibitive. Federal spends about $4M annually in capital costs - the Federal rep estimated that just to START trying to comply with this legislation would cost them $10M in new capital costs, or 2.5 years' worth of current capital expenditures.

In addition, Federal produces 6 million rounds per day, and some lines run at 1800 rounds per minute; trying to implement ammo encoding into this level of production would drop the production rate several orders of magnitude, reducing the overall production and increasing costs. When asked by the Maryland delegates if they would invest all of that capital or simply stop seliing ammo to that state, the ammo reps said it was "highly unlikely" that they would continue to sell ammo to that state.

IF this legislation were somehow passed in CT, the cost of compliant ammo would be so high that CT shooters and law enforcement would simply procure their ammo from other states, resulting in significant lost revenue to the state of CT.

As an example, factoring in ONLY the 5 cent tax per round, and not yet including any cost increases passed on by the manufacturers, a "brick" of 500 rounds of .22 long rifle ammo would go from costing about $13 per brick to about $40 per brick - a cost increase of 200%. Hit the delegates with that number.

3) Chain of Custody

Several people testified as to the huge holes in the chain of custody, that would make it practically impossible to use the ID number on a shell casing (IF recovered at a crime scene) or a bullet fragment (IF the number were somehow still legible) as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Right off the top of my head, here are points in the chain where the potential for error exists:
- Unique ID number not changed at correct intervals at factory
- Bullet not matched to shell casing with same unique ID
- ID numbers on bullets or shell casings don't match box ID
- Box ID not correct for any boxes in a lot
- Lot #s not logged correctly (i.e., not matched to the correct distributor or retailer)
- Distributors/retailers incorrectly log ID numbers at point of sale
- Package tampering (accidental or deliberate) at retailer
- Final sale ID numbers logged incorrectly or inaccurately

Even IF the numbers made it through all of these steps in an accurate manner, the possibility of theft/loss/resale still exists; any of these factors would cast serious doubt upon any court testimony - taken in combination, they render any testimony based on this chain of evidence worthless in a court of law.

4) Safety Concerns

The technology that Ford is proposing uses laser etching to encode a unique ID number on a bullet and shell casing. The Federal ammo rep raised a concern over potential safety issues related to having lasers operating in proximity to gunpowder and primers (still another thing Ford didn't think about).

5) Hawaii Attorney General

During our testimony in Maryland, one of our Maryland delegates mentioned that the Hawaii Attorney General had declared this legislation "a violation of the Hawaii citizen's Constitutional rights" which took both Russ Ford and the sponsoring delegate for a loop. If you can find a refrence to that statement, it would be great to mention to your CT legislators that other states had raised serious concerns in terms of rights infringement. Maybe someone on THR from Hawaii might be able to help with that.


In summary, this technology can't assist law enforcement in solving crimes due to the chain of custody issues mentioned above, and offers NO other benefits, but does introduce significant cost increases to both civilian and law enforcement consumers.

 

[tinygnat219]

Not a Northeasterner, but I fired off an E-mail anyway. I live in VA.

 

[MDHunter]

Sample Letter...

Here's sample text based on the letter I sent to the Maryland House Judicial Proceedings Committee, which CT residents can edit/revise and use if you wish for your own legislation:


_______, March __, 2008


Delegate ____________________
____________________________
____________________________


RE: Opposition to ___________


Dear Delegate __________,

I am writing to you to express my outrage and opposition to __________, an Act Concerning Ammunition Coding recently introduced before the Connecticut Committee on Judiciary.

This bill is nothing more than a subversive attempt by the sponsors of the bill to circumvent the will of the free citizens of Connecticut. The bill would render some law-abiding citizens of Connecticut incapable of affording ammunition.

The sponsors of the bill propose a $.05 per cartridge tax on all ammunition capable of being used in a regulated firearm. This would include nearly every cartridge, used in nearly every sporting firearm, manufactured in the world. The bill would impose a $25 tax on a “brick” of five hundred rounds of .22lr (long rifle) ammunition, typically used for recreational target shooting. This $25 tax represents 200% of the cost of ammunition itself, which currently costs about $12.50 per brick. (NOTE - just make sure this 5 scent tax also exists in the CT bill, i didn't check)

No ammunition manufacturer in the world has the current capability to serialize individual cartridges, pack them in similarly serialized boxes, and record the sale of those individual boxes to distributors and retailers. This places an undue record-keeping burden on retailers, for sales to those citizens that have already passed a substantial criminal background check in order to even purchase their firearms.

In addition to the economic issues involved, stamped shell casings could not be used with confidence to solve crimes, as serious concerns about the evidentiary chain of custody exist; also, criminals would quickly adapt by procuring their ammunition elsewhere or spreading someone else’s shell casings at crime scenes. By creating a bill which cannot help solve crimes and places an undue economic burden on ammunition manufacturers and citizens who shoot firearms, the state of Connecticut is trying to impose a de facto gun ban and limit our Constitutional freedoms.

I strongly oppose this bill in any form and urge you to give it an unfavorable report.

Respectfully,

 

[ptmmatssc]

with either of these bills , are LEOs exempt? And if so , why?

 

[Jim K]

The MD bill would have exempted governments from the tax, but apparently not from the coding requirement, which all ammunition would have had. So at least the police would not be able to shoot people with untraceable ammunition.

Apparently ACS provided a model bill to their puppets in the legislatures and they added whatever other little ideas they wanted.

The MD bill also said that after a certain date, anyone with uncoded ammunition would have to surrender it. Enforcement would presumably be by police raids, though the bill never said how that section was to be enforced. I understand some versions also specifically banned handloading and made it a felony to possess any uncoded ammunition or components.

Jim

 

[MDHunter]

Reach out to CT Shooters....

One ting you might want to do, if you're looking for help from other CT shooters on this Forum - start a new thread with Connecticut Shooters in the title, then link that thread to this one, not sure they'll see this thread and know it's ab out CT....

 

[Nomad101bc]

I worked with the folks at www.AR15.com and they have been extremely vigilant. I have gotten friends to blast off emails as well. You make alot of excellent points about how this is simply impossible to implement. Its too bad this is not the good old days when we could have "Russ Ford" tarred and feathered...BTW I will be forwarding your info to the fellows at www.AR15.com some of them are on a first name basis with their representatives.

 

[30 cal slob]

CT Sportsmen's mailings have been strangely subdued about the issue.

Something like this should have gun owners jumping up and down. What gives?

What else can I do besides write and call my legiscritters?

-slob

 

[Cuda71]

This is an issue for those outside of CT as well. Check out Sen. Andrew McDonald's comments in the Stamford Advocate:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-guns5mar04,0,6339768.story

Proponents of the new technology yesterday acknowledged the major drawback: Even if Connecticut passes the legislation, there would still be plenty of firearms sold out of state that do not have it.

California is the only state to have adopted the technology. That state's legislature last year passed a law requiring micro stamping on guns; the bill was signed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

McDonald and Lawlor hoped that if the Connecticut General Assembly backs micro stamping, neighboring states would embrace it as well, and eventually Congress would pass federal legislation.

"And that's how you roll something out across the country," McDonald said.

 

[dogma512]

5) Hawaii Attorney General

During our testimony in Maryland, one of our Maryland delegates mentioned that the Hawaii Attorney General had declared this legislation "a violation of the Hawaii citizen's Constitutional rights" which took both Russ Ford and the sponsoring delegate for a loop. If you can find a refrence to that statement, it would be great to mention to your CT legislators that other states had raised serious concerns in terms of rights infringement. Maybe someone on THR from Hawaii might be able to help with that.

I submitted testimony opposing both the House and Senate versions of this bill. I was also present to testify in person against the Senate bill although I missed the House reading. The Deputy AG did testify at the Senate Reading that the AG's office was opposed to the Bill for several reasons but my impression was that they were really worried about bureaucratic burden. I don't recall the exact language that was used. Oddly, I can't seem to find testimony from the AG's office in the official record for Senate version of the Bill although it is the first item in the House record.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/Testimony/HB2392_JUD_02-01-08_.pdf
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/Testimony/SB2020_JDL_02-12-08_.pdf

You may want to try contacting the Hawaii AG's office for their Senate testimony.

 

[MDHunter]

Letters to the Editor

Somebody from CT needs to send a letter to the Editor of the Stamford paper, and squash this crap. Post #11 in this thread has info that can be summarized to point out the many fallacies in the proposed bill.

Get on them, guys. Don't let them think that this crap would actually work.

 

[30 cal slob]

*bump*